Amgen Business Review - library.corporate-ir.netlibrary.corporate-ir.net/library/61/616/61656/items/314765/08.11.07... · Amgen Business Review November 7, ... Amgen is providing

Amgen Business ReviewNovember 7, 2008

Strategic OutlookKevin SharerCEO

3Provided November 7, 2008 as part of an oral presentation and is qualified by such,contains forward-looking statements, actual results may vary materially;Amgen disclaims any duty to update.

Safe Harbor StatementThis presentation contains forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current expectations and beliefs and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements, including estimates of revenues, operating margins, capital expenditures, cash, other financial metrics, expected legal, arbitration, political, regulatory or clinical results or practices, customer and prescriber patterns or practices, reimbursement activities and outcomes and other such estimates and results. Forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, including those discussed below and more fully described in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reports filed by Amgen, including Amgen’s most recent annual report on Form 10-K and most recent periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K. Please refer to Amgen’s most recent Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K for additional information on the uncertainties and risk factors related to our business. Unless otherwise noted, Amgen is providing this information as of November 7, 2008 and expressly disclaims any duty to update information contained in this presentation.

No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed and actual results may differ materially from those we project. The Company’s results may be affected by our ability to successfully market both new and existing products domestically and internationally, clinical and regulatory developments (domestic or foreign) involving current and future products, sales growth of recently launched products, competition from other products (domestic or foreign) and difficulties or delays in manufacturing our products. Discovery or identification of new product candidates cannot be guaranteed and movement from concept to product is uncertain; consequently, there can be no guarantee that any particular product candidate will be successful and become a commercial product. Further, preclinical results do not guarantee safe and effective performance of product candidates in humans. The product candidates discussed in this presentation are not approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), and only the FDA can determine whether the product candidates are safe and effective for the use(s) being investigated. The length of time that it takes for us to complete clinical trials and obtain regulatory approval for product marketing has in the past varied and we expect similar variability in the future. In addition, sales of our products are affected by reimbursement policies imposed by third-party payers, including governments, private insurance plans and managed care providers and may be affected by regulatory, clinical and guideline developments and domestic and international trends toward managed care and healthcare cost containment as well as U.S. legislation affecting pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement. Government and others’ regulations and reimbursement policies may affect the development, usage and pricing of our products. Furthermore, our research, testing, pricing, marketing and other operations are subject to extensive regulation by domestic and foreign government regulatory authorities. We or others could identify safety, side effects or manufacturing problems with our products after they are on the market. Our business may be impacted by government investigations, litigation and products liability claims. Further, while we routinely obtain patents for our products and technology, the protection offered by our patents and patent applications may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented by our competitors. We depend on third parties for a significant portion of our manufacturing capacity for the supply of certain of our current and future products and limits on supply may constrain sales of certain of our current products and product candidate development. In addition, we compete with other companies with respect to some of our marketed products as well as for the discovery and development of new products. Discovery or identification of new product candidates cannot be guaranteed and movement from concept to product is uncertain; consequently, there can be no guarantee that any particular product candidate will be successful and become a commercial product. Further, some raw materials, medical devices and component parts for our products are supplied by sole third-party suppliers.

This presentation includes GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. In accordance with the requirements of SEC Regulation G, reconciliations between these two measures, if these slides are in hard copy, accompany the hard copy presentation or, if these slides are delivered electronically, are available on the Company's website at www.amgen.com within the Investors section.


Today’s Agenda

Roger M. Perlmutter

Sean HarperR&D Overview8:15–9:15

Robert A. BradwayFocus on Value Creation10:15–10:30

George Morrow

Jim Daly

Growing the Base and Commercializing Denosumab

9:15–10:15

AllQ&A10:30–11:30

Strategic Outlook Kevin Sharer8:00–8:15


Our Industry Faces Unprecedented Challenges

Scarcity of new, truly innovative products

Wave of patent expiries

Heightened focus on safety vs efficacy

Increased demand for value over access

New administration in the US with plans for health care system changes

Uncertain global economic conditions

Amgen is positioned to meet these challenges


We Have the Right Strategy to Succeed

Invest heavily in R&D with a focus on innovation

Grow our existing products

Launch denosumab with compelling value propositions

Pursue continuous operating efficiency improvements

Diversify into markets outside the US

Look outside for new product and partnering opportunities

Defend our intellectual property

All focused around our mission to serve patients


We Have the Right Team and Resources to Deliver on Our Potential

Strong cash flow and balance sheet

R&D is delivering on decisionstaken since 2001

Commercial is exceptionally experienced in launching and marketing diverse product lines

Finance is focused on resource allocation, capital decisions, and value creation

Operations is optimizing our manufacturing base and is ready for our future products


We Have Delivered in the Face of Major Overhangs Over the Past 18 Months

Successfully executed denosumab global development program

Delivered earnings without compromising pipeline investment

Resolved critical legal issues: Roche, JNJ

Competed effectively against follow-on biologics in Europe

Navigated effectively through ESA issues

Took decisive actions to reshape the company

ESA = erythropoiesis stimulating agent


What Are Our Aspirational Goals Over the Next 5 Years?

Deliver for patients and shareholders

Grow revenues and adjusted EPS at industry-leading levels

Invest in our pipeline to innovate at an industry-leading pace

Become more global in all respects

Continuously improve our efficiency

Remain the biotechnology partner of choice

Amgen’s fundamentals are strongand our growth profile is attractive

R&D OverviewRoger M. PerlmutterExecutive Vice President, Research and Development


Amgen R&D Guiding Principles

Seamless Integration

Focus ongrievous illness

Fit the therapeutic modality to the

target

Study the disease in people


We Have Invested Significantly Since 2001 to Expand Our R&D Capabilities

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008e

$ Billions*

25% 22% 21% 20% 19% 23% 21% 20%% of Sales

*Non-GAAP financial measure—if this slide is in hard copy, see reconciliations accompanying the presentation, or if this slideis delivered electronically, see reconciliations available at: www.amgen.com within the Investors section.


During That Time Frame, We Launched Seven New Products

2001Aranesp®

(darbepoetin alfa)

Kineret®

(anakinra)

2008Nplate™

(romiplostim)

2002Neulasta®

(pegfilgrastim)

Amgen acquired Immunex, including Enbrel® (etanercept)

2005Kepivance®

(palifermin)

2004Sensipar®

(cinacalcet)

2006Vectibix®

(panitumumab)


Much of Our R&D Spend Has Focused on Delivering and Supporting These Products

R&D Spend2001–2008

Research25%

Preclinical12%

Early Development5%

Marketed43%

Registrational15%


Late-Stage Programs, Including Denosumab, Have Also Driven Substantial Investment

R&D Spend2001–2008

Research25%

Preclinical12%

Early Development5%

Marketed43%

Registrational15%


We Have Invested Heavily to Expand Our Research Capabilities

R&D Spend2001–2008

Research25%

Preclinical12%

Early Development5%

Marketed43%

Registrational15%


Our Modality Mix Is Advantageous Modality Mix of Amgen NMEs

Entering Preclinical Development 2001–2008e

22%Small Molecules

30%Biotechnology

Approval Success RateProduct Class

Source: Reichert, JM. Nature Biotechnol.2001;19:819-822.

72%

84%

MAbs

45%Phase 2

73%Phase 1

Small Molecules

Cumulative Clinical Success

Early Development

Large Molecules

n = 47

(59%)

Small Molecules

n = 32

(41%)

Source: Tufts CSDD, 2008.Note: Success rate from phase 1 to approval.

NME = new molecular entityMAb = monoclonal antibody


64

1

9

13

10

13

19

02468

101214161820

Preclinical Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3/Marketed

Our Increased Investment in R&D Has More Than Doubled the Size of Our Pipeline

DenosumabMotesanibNplate™

Vectibix®

Kepivance®

Sensipar®

Enbrel®Neulasta®

Aranesp®

Kineret®

Stemgen®

NEUPOGEN®

EPOGEN®

20012008


Aranesp®

Sensipar®

AMG 223Sensipar®

Nephrology

AMG 2222

AMG 221AMG 477

GeneralMedicine

Motesanib4

DenosumabVectibix®

AMG 102AMG 386AMG 479AMG 655rhApo2L/TRAIL1

Motesanib4

Vectibix®

Nplate™

AMG 745AMG 8883

Hematology/Oncology

Denosumab

AMG 7855

Bone

Phase 3

Phase 2

Phase 1

Inflammation

AMG 108AMG 317Denosumab

AMG 191AMG 557AMG 714AMG 761AMG 811AMG 827AMG 853

Our Pipeline Is Filled With Opportunities That Will Leverage Our Existing Franchises

Small/Synthetic Protein/Pb Monoclonal Ab

1Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with Genentech, Inc.2Clinical development is being conducted by Servier through phase 2.3Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with U3 Pharma AG/Daiichi Sankyo.

4Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with Takeda.5Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with UCB.Pb = peptibodyAb = antibodyTRAIL = TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand

Pipeline OverviewSean HarperSenior Vice President, Global Development and Corporate Chief Medical Officer


Vectibix® P3(mSCCHN)

AMG 655 P2(Pancreatic, mCRC)

AMG 386 P2(Ovarian, Breast, RCC)

Sensipar®/Mimpara® P3

(EVOLVE)

AMG 479 P2(Pancreatic, Ewing’s

Sarcoma, Breast)

Motesanib P33

(NSCLC)

Denosumab P3(Bone Mets Prevention:

Prostate)

2010

Aranesp® P3(TREAT)

AMG 223 P2(Hyperphosphatemia)

AMG 655 P2(NSCLC and Sarcoma)

AMG 386 P2(Gastric)

AMG 222 P2a2

(Diabetes)

AMG 102 P2(RCC, GBM)

Vectibix® P3(1st and 2nd Line

mCRC)

rhApo2L/TRAIL P21

(NSCLC)

Motesanib P23

(H2H NSCLCand mBC)

2009Denosumab P3

(SREs)

Key Clinical Study Results Anticipated in 2009 and 2010

1Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with Genentech, Inc.2Clinical development is being conducted by Servier through phase 2.3Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with Takeda.Many studies are event-driven and data availability may vary as a result.

SRE = skeletal-related eventH2H = head-to-headNSCLC = non–small-cell lung cancermBC = metastatic breast cancerRCC = renal cell carcinomaGBM = glioblastoma multiforme

mCRC = metastatic colorectal cancerTREAT = Trial to Reduce Cardiovascular Events with Aranesp® TherapyEVOLVE = Evaluation of Cinacalcet Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular EventsmSCCHN = metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck

Oncology Therapeutic AreaBuilding a Comprehensive Program in Therapeutic Oncology


Amgen’sComprehensive

Approach

HGF/SFIGF–1/2

VEGF

AngiogenesisGrowth regulation

Apop

tosi

s

RANK

L

ThrombopoietinErythropoietin

G-CSF

Apo

2L/T

RA

ILEG

F

Hematopoiesis

Bone

met

abol

ism

and

met

asta

ses

Angiopoietin–1/2

A Mechanistic Approach to Targeted Therapy of Cancer

Vectibix®

(panitumumab)

rhApo2L/TRAIL1

AMG 655

Motesanib3

Denosumab

Nplate™ (romiplostim)

AMG 102AMG 479

AMG 386

AMG 8882

1Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with Genentech, Inc.2Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with U3 Pharma AG/Daiichi Sankyo.3Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with Takeda.


AMG 655: Fully Human MAb-Targeting Death Receptors in Cancer Cells


AMG 655: Phase 1 Highlights

Doses up to 20 mg/kg appear to be well tolerated– No DLTs reported in first 28 days of treatment– No drug-related SAEs

PK data support further investigation of Q2W or Q3W intravenous dosing

Antitumor activity seen – Partial response in NSCLC– Metabolic partial response in CRC

DLT = dose-limiting toxicitySAE = serious adverse eventPK = pharmacokineticCRC = colorectal cancerLoRusso, et al. ASCO 2007; Abstract 3534.


AMG 655: Development Program Overview Through 2010

Phase 1 study

Phase 1 study in Japan

Phase 2 with carboplatin + paclitaxel in first line advanced NSCLC

Phase 2 with gemcitabine in first line metastatic pancreatic cancer

Phase 2 with doxorubicin in first line locally advanced or metastatic, unresectable soft tissue sarcoma

Phase 2 with panitumumab in mCRC

Phase 1b with bortezomib or vorinostat in relapsedor refractory lymphoma

Phase 2 with mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab in first line mCRC


Phase 1b/2 Study of AMG 655 + CP in NSCLC: Tumor Response

65-year-old patient with stage IV NSCLC

Complete response after three cycles of 5 mg/kg AMG 655 + CP

CP = carboplatin + paclitaxelPaz-Ares L, et al. ESMO 2008; Abstract 488.


AMG 386: Inhibiting Angiogenesis Througha Pathway Distinct From VEGF


AMG 386: Phase 1b Highlights

AMG 386 combined well with a variety of chemotherapy and targeted agents– Most common AEs were neutropenia, anemia, dyspnoea,

diarrhea, and hypertension– Classic anti-VEGF toxicities (hypertension, proteinuria,

thromboembolic events) occurred at rates consistent with the underlying VEGF inhibitor

Responders were reported (breast, pancreatic, bladder, RCC) in these small phase 1b studies

AE = adverse eventMita, et al. ECCO 2007; Abstract 708.


AMG 386: Development Program Overview Through 2010

Phase 1 in advanced solid tumors

Phase 1 with VEGF inhibitors in advanced solid tumors

Phase 1b with chemotherapy in advanced solid tumors

Phase 2 with sorafenib in RCC

Phase 2 with paclitaxel in advanced ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer

Phase 2 with cisplatin and capecitabine in metastatic gastric and esophageal cancer

Phase 2 with paclitaxel +/- bevacizumab in her2-negative first line breast cancer


Best Tumor Response by RECIST

Confirmed Partial Response Stable Disease Progressive Disease

Sorafenib Cohort(Renal Cell Carcinoma)

AMG 386: Combined Blockade With VEGF Inhibition Appears Promising

RECIST = response evaluation criteria in solid tumors*Stable disease (0% maximum change; bevacizumab + AMG 386) Hong, et al. ESMO 2008; Abstract 462.

–100–80–60–40–20

020406080

100

Overall response rate: 5 out of 17 enrolled patients (29%)M

axim

um C

hang

e in

Tum

orM

easu

rem

ent F

rom

Bas

elin

e (%

)


Amgen Oncology Therapeutics Program*:39 Phase 2 Programs in > 15 Tumor Types

*Ongoing or planned to start in 2008 or Q1 20091Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with Genentech, Inc.; 2Amgen is developing this product in collaboration with Takeda.

SCLCSarcomaRCCProstatePancreaticOvarian recOvarian 1stNSCLC (SCC)NSCLCNHLmCRC othersmCRC 2ndmCRC 1stSCCHN loc advSCCHN rec/metGBMGastricEWSBreast Her+Breast Her-Breast ER+

Vectibix®rhApo2L/TRAIL1AMG 655Motesanib2AMG 479AMG 386AMG 102

EWS = Ewing’s sarcomaNHL = non-Hodgkin lymphomaSCC = squamous cell carcinomaSCLC = small-cell lung cancer

Inflammation Therapeutic AreaBuilding on Our Strength in Inflammation to Address Unmet Needs


TH2 Cells Orchestrate the AllergicImmune Response

MastCell

AirwayEpithelial

Cells

Airway Smooth Muscle

DC

Mast Cell

IgE

IL-4IL-13IL-5 Eosinophil

Inflammatory Stimuli

CCL17/22

CCR4TH2

IL-4/IL-13IL-5/TNFα

BB

TSLP

IL-5/13PGD2

CCR4TH2


AMG 761: Developing an Innovative MAb Technology for the Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases

Antibody (mg/mL)

Conventional Ab

AD

CC

Act

ivity

(%)

POTELLIGENT® Ab

0

20

40

60

80

0.001 0.01 1 100.1

ADCC = antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicityPOTELLIGENT® is a registered trademark of Kyowa Hakko.


The Promise of AMG 761

Selective and potent depletion of CCR4+ TH2 cells– Effective at 0.001 mg/kg, IV

Prolonged PD suggests infrequent dosing regimen – > 80% inhibition for ~ 1–2 weeks at 0.003 mg/kg, IV– Effects seen beyond 8 weeks

Potential utility in other inflammatory diseases

PD = pharmacodynamics

Bone Therapeutic AreaTargeting Key Regulators of Bone Remodeling


Two Ways to Increase Bone Density

RANKL

BONE

Osteoblasts

Osteoclast

Osteoclast Precursor

RANK

RANKL

RANK

Block Resorption

Increase Formation

Sclerostin (-)


Sclerostin Mutations Lead to Increased Bone Density in Humans

Increased bone mass throughout skeleton

Good quality, fracture-resistant bone

Sclerosteosis/van Buchem’s

Normal

Sclerosteosis

Sclerostin…Is secreted by osteocytesInhibits osteoblast activity likely via antagonism of Wnt pathwayAntagonism leads to bone formation

Program partnered with UCB


Time (day)

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84

% C

hang

e fr

om B

asel

ine

(Mea

n ±

SEM

)

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Large Anabolic Window Following Single SC Dose ofAMG 785 to Healthy Postmenopausal Women With Low Bone Mass

10 mg/kg(N = 6)

P1NP CTX

P1NP = amino terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagenSC = subcutaneousCTX = C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagenAmgen is developing this product in collaboration with UCB.


Two Ways to Increase Bone Density

RANKL

BONE

Osteoblasts

Osteoclast

Osteoclast Precursor

RANK

RANKL

RANK

Block Resorption

Increase Formation

Sclerostin (-)


Denosumab Investigated in an Extensive Clinical Program

~ 7,000 subjects~ 4,500 subjects~ 10,000 subjects

Phase 2: RA(n = 227)

Delay Progression to Bone Metastases, Prostate

(n = 1,435)Bisphosphonate Transition

(n = 504)

Solid Tumor SRE(n = 1,779)

ABCSG-18 Breast(n = 2,800)

Denosumab vs Alendronate (n = 1,189)

Prostate SRE(n = 1,870)

HALT Prostate(n = 1,468)

Prevention of PMO(n = 332)

Breast SRE(n = 2,049)

HALT Breast(n = 252)

Treatment of PMO(n = 7,868)

Osteoporosis/RA Treatment-InducedBone Loss Oncology

RA = rheumatoid arthritisPMO = postmenopausal osteoporosisHALT = Hormone Ablation Bone Loss Trial

ABCSG = Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study GroupAvailable at: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Accessed January 28, 2008.


Denosumab in Oncology Represents Another Significant Opportunity

Early Cancer Advanced Cancer

Treatment-Induced Bone Loss

Delay Progression to Bone Mets

Treatment of Bone Mets

120 mg QM120 mg QM 60 mg Q6M

103/136/244 Protocols147 Protocol138 (HALT-PC)135 (HALT-BC)

HT = hormone therapySource: Amgen estimates. US + EU5.


Prostate Cancer Highlights Potential Across the Spectrum of Bone Disease

Initial Diagnosis and Therapy

Hormone Therapy Bone

Metastasis

PSA Relapse

SREs

Treatment of Bone

Metastasis

Delay Progression to

Bone Metastasis

Treatment-Induced

Bone Loss

PSA

Lev

el

5 Years 15 Years

PSA = prostate-specific antigen


A Phase 2 Study of Denosumab in Patients With Bone Metastases Inadequately Controlled With Intravenous Bisphosphonates

Primary endpointProportion of patients with uNTx < 50 at week 13

Key secondary endpointsTime to reduction of uNTx < 50Time to first on-study SRE

n = 37 IV BP Q4W

n = 38 Denosumab 180 mg SC Q4W

n = 36 Denosumab 180 mg SC Q12W Screening/Randomization

Extension/Follow-up

25 weeks of treatment

BP = bisphosphonatesIV = intravenousuNTx = urinary N-telopeptide


Treatment With Denosumab Resulted in Rapid Suppression of Bone Turnover

Fizazi, et al. ASCO 2008; Abstract 3596.


Time to First Skeletal-Related Event

Fizazi, et al. ASCO 2008; Abstract 3596.N/A = not applicable; SREs = skeletal-related events

IV BP Q4W(N = 35)

Denosumab180 mg Q12W

(N = 35)

Denosumab180 mg Q4W

(N = 38)All Denosumab

(N = 73)

Patients With SREs 6 (17%) 4 (11%) 2 (5%) 6 (8%)

Odds Ratio (95% CI) N/A 0.36 (0.08, 1.76) 0.26 (0.05, 1.44) 0.31 (0.08, 1.18)

IV BP Q4WTotal Denosumab

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Prop

ortio

n of

Pat

ient

s W

ith a

Firs

t-on-

Stud

ySk

elet

al-R

elat

ed E

vent

Study Day


Denosumab: Treatment of Bone Metastases (Breast SRE Study)

Primary endpoint Time to first on-study SRE (non-inferiority)

Secondary endpointsTime to first on-study SRE (superiority)Time to first and subsequent on-study SRE (superiority)

Study Population:Subjects With Advanced Breast Cancer and Bone Metastases

Denosumab 120 mg SC + placebo IV over 15 minutes

Q4W(n = 1,025)

Placebo SC + zoledronic acid 4 mg IV infusion over 15 minutes

Q4W(n = 1,025)

ENROLLMENT

SCREENI

NG

FOLLOWUP

ENDOFSTUDY

Up to 2 years


Summary

Built R&D capabilities through meaningful investment since 2001

R&D pipeline has more than doubled, while cost of clinical development is competitive and remains in focus

Our pipeline is filled with opportunities across therapeutic areas that will leverage our existing franchises

Oncology represents another potential blockbuster opportunity for denosumab

Growing the Base and Commercializing DenosumabGeorge MorrowExecutive Vice President, Global Commercial OperationsJim DalySenior Vice President, North America Commercial Operations


Growing Our Base Business Is a StrategicImperative as We Prepare to Launch Denosumab

Further modest declines in the global Aranesp® franchise are likely, but longer term growth is achievable

Our maturing products’ growth will be driven primarily by patient and price growth for several years– EPOGEN®, Filgrastim, Enbrel®

Our growth products will benefit from increasing penetration of growing markets, along with some new indications– Sensipar®, Vectibix®, Nplate™

We recognize growth challenges facing our products, and are focused on managing those risks

Denosumab is an extraordinary opportunity to potentially change the practice of medicine in multiple indications


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’112006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

“When Will Aranesp® Sales Bottom Out, and Can It Return to Growth?”

Aranesp®

$ Millions, Quarterly Net Sales


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’11

Patient and price growthTREAT outcomes study

New oncology label/REMSShare and price pressuresBiosimilars (Europe)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

After Four Quarters of Relative Stability, Aranesp® Is Experiencing Another “Step-Down” in Sales That Should Stabilize in 2009

Aranesp®


REMS = Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy


Non-Oncology$0.2

Q3 2008 Aranesp®

Worldwide $0.8

Oncology$0.2

Q3 2008 Aranesp® Sales Snapshot

~ 50%Commercial:~ 50%Medicare/Government:

Note: Rounded to the nearest $50M. Excludes $54M returns reserve adjustment.

Oncology$0.2

Non-Oncology$0.25

Oncology$0.15

Ex-US$0.4

US$0.4

Aranesp®

$ Billions


58 33 30

4Q ’06 3Q ’07 3Q ’08

US Aranesp® “Step-Down” Sales Declines Driven by Specific Events; Additional Decline of 10–20% Likely

3,000

1,700

Annualized Run-Rate AoC study

Label changeNCD

Label change

REMSContract changesAdditional label changes?

WeeklyRun-Rate

1,600

Aranesp®

$ Millions, Net Sales

AoC = anemia of cancerNCD = National Coverage Determination


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’112006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

“How Is ‘Bundling’ Legislation in 2011 Expected to Affect EPOGEN® Sales?”EPOGEN®



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’11

Patient and price growth

Phase-in of ESRD composite rate roll-inRestrictions on dose/utilization?New competition?

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

EPOGEN® Use Has Stabilized Since EMP Implementation in January 2008EPOGEN®


ESRD = end-stage renal disease


ESRD Bundling Proposal Included in the 2008 Medicare Legislation

Single rate for all services and IV drugs involved in treating ESRD patients4-year transition beginning in 2011– In 2011, 25% of payments based on the new bundled rate;

75% based on current reimbursement– Percent under bundle increases by 25% per year– Prior to 2011, facilities will be able to “opt-out” of transition

and be fully bundled at implementation

Quality incentive program will be in place– Up to 2% reimbursement at risk for quality– Quality metrics to be established by CMS

• Must include anemia management

CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services


Factors With Potential Impact on EPOGEN® Use

We believe any dose decline would be modest– Move from IV dosing to SC Unlikely in large scale

• EPOGEN® label• Patient preference• MD preference

– Increase iron to reduce EPO dose Modest impact• Majority of patients iron-replete

– Reduce hemoglobin levels Modest impact• Quality metrics


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’112006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

“Can You Sustain Unit Growth for Neulasta® in the US and What Impact Will Biosimilars Have on Neulasta®/NEUPOGEN® in Europe?”

Neulasta®/NEUPOGEN®



0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’11

Increase first-cycle usePatient and price growthContinued conversion (Europe)

Less myelosuppressive regimensBiosimilars G-CSF (Europe)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Neulasta®/NEUPOGEN® Continues to Maintain Consistent GrowthNeulasta®/NEUPOGEN®


G-CSF = granulocyte colony-stimulating factor


Neulasta® Promotion Focused on Reducing Febrile Neutropenia and Its Consequences

600K patients/year at riskfor FN

Although > 500K patients/year receive a growth factor, only ~ 300K receive it in the first cycle

FN continues to adversely affect patient outcomes

Challenge is for physicians to ID patients most likelyto develop FN

Source: Caggiano V, Weiss RV, Rickert TS, Linde-Zwirble WT. “Incidence, cost and mortality of neutropenia hospitalization associated with chemotherapy. Cancer. 2005; 103 1916-1924.

FN = febrile neutropenia


200820072006

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

90%

Granocyte®NEUPOGEN® Neulasta®

56%

Biosimilars Have Affected First Generation Share and Price, But Only Price on Second Generation

80%

–5%

+13%

Filgrastim FranchiseEU Value Segment Share

200820072006

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Mircera® Biosimilars/Dynepo™Aranesp® Eprex® NeoRecormon®

Aranesp® NephrologyEU Value Segment Share


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’112006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

“Can Enbrel® Grow in the Face of New Competition?”Enbrel®$ Millions, Quarterly Net Sales


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’11

Biologic penetration in rheumatology and dermatology with Enbrel®positioned as first line

Competitive pressures– Rheumatology:

Golimumab Cimzia®

Actemra®

– Dermatology:Humira®

Ustekinumab

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Established Profile of Enbrel® Has Enabled Growth Despite New CompetitionEnbrel®$ Millions, Quarterly Net Sales


*Dermatology Awareness and Usage Study, Wave 16, n = 150 dermatologists, data collected in June 2008*ImpactRx, July 2008, syndicated data panel including n = 136 dermatologists nationwide; 3-month rolling averages include May–July 2008 data*Qualified rheumatologist (n = 400); when prescribing a biologic for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, which one would you choose for yourself or a family member*What reasons do you have for saying that (BIOLOGIC) is your preferred agent for RA, overall?**Dermatology and Rheumatology Office Manager Awareness and Usage Study, n = 138

Enbrel® Expected to Maintain a Leadership Position as First Line in Both Rheumatology and Dermatology

MDs rate Enbrel® as having best balance of safety and efficacy*

Drive patient requests and acceptance of Enbrel®

Continued effectiveness in minimizing access and reimbursement barriers**

#1 rated program across segments

Unprecedented Enbrel®GA-TV presence

#1 prescribed and recommended across

segments


0

40

80

120

160

200

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’112006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

“Can Sensipar® Be a Blockbuster?”Sensipar®



0

40

80

120

160

200

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’112006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Strong Sensipar® Performance Due to Patient Penetration

Increased penetration iPTH > 300Price and patient growthADVANCE (2009), EVOLVE (2012)

Sensipar®


ADVANCE = Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation


0

25

50

75

100

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’112006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

“What Is the Growth Potentialof Vectibix®?”

Vectibix®



0

25

50

75

100

Q1 ’06

Q3 ’06

Q1 ’07

Q3 ’07

Q1 '08

Q3 '08

Q1 ’09

Q3 ’09

Q1 ’10

Q3 ’10

Q1 ’11

Q3 ’11

International launchesKRASPositive CRC data(181/203 studies)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Vectibix® Uptake Dependent on New Data in CRC and HNCVectibix®


HNC = head and neck cancer


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

AZ AMGN GSK NVS MRK LLY ROCHE PFE ABT DNA GILD

Cumulative Sales of Products Launched Since January 2001

Cum

ulat

ive

Sale

s 20

01–2

007

($ B

illio

ns)

Source: EvaluatePharma Top Drugs 2007; first introduced after 2000Note: Nexium® and Symbicort® included in analysis, US approval 2001; EU introduction 2000

Denosumab PMO Launch Discussion


For Many Patients, It’s About the Journey

Bisphosphonate clinical trial efficacy

Denosumabclinical trial efficacy

Real-world efficacy

Real-world efficacy

Why?

How?

X


Value Depends on Cost and Real-World Outcomes

Everyone Else

Highly Compliant Generic BP Responders

Treated PMO Population*

*Illustrative example


Top Questions Investors Have for Denosumab in PMO

Q1. What will it take to successfully launch denosumab in PMO?

Q2. Why might doctors prescribe denosumab vs what they are currently using?

Q3. Who are the most likely patient candidates at launch?

Q4. What type of reimbursement might be in place at launch, and how will denosumab be accessed and administered?

Q5. What might the shape of the sales curve look like?

Q6. What will be denosumab’s value proposition vs bisphosphonates?

Q7. How many reps do you need to successfully launch denosumab, and what is your view on partnering opportunities?


Q1: What Will It Take to Successfully Launch Denosumab in PMO?

Product that is clinically attractive to many doctors/patients

Product that is easy for doctors to access and administer with manageable financial risk

Product that is easy for patients to access/comply with, without overly burdensome out-of-pocket costs


This slide has been left blank intentionally


77% 78%

23% 22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Preference OverallSatisfaction

Injection Tablet

78% 79%

22% 21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Preference OverallSatisfaction

Injection Tablet

Nearly 80% of Patients Preferred 6 Months SC Injection vs Oral Weekly Tablet

Pref

eren

ceA

mon

g Th

ose

Who

Exp

ress

ed P

refe

renc

e

Pref

eren

ceA

mon

g Th

ose

Who

Exp

ress

ed P

refe

renc

e

Patients Previously Treated With Bisphosphonates

†

*p < 0.0001 for injection vs tablet †Pre-specified exploratory endpoint

* *

†

Patients Naïve to Bisphosphonate Therapy


Q1: What Will It Take to Successfully Launch Denosumab in PMO?

Product that is clinically attractive to many doctors/patients

Product that is easy for doctors to access and administer with manageable financial risk

Product that is easy for patients to access/comply with, without overly burdensome out-of-pocket costs


Q2: Why Might Doctors Prescribe Denosumab vs What They Are Currently Using?

80% of MDs indicated that there remains a need for new products1

Most desirable attributes2

– Prevents fractures– Safety– Good compliance– Strengthens bone (increases BMD)– Good formulary status– Well tolerated

BMD = bone mineral density1US ATU Study Wave 3, Quant Study with GPs and Specialists in US, May 20072Global DMAB PMO ATU, Quant Study with GPs and Specialists in the US and ICO, May 2007


PTH = parathyroid hormoneSERM = selective estrogen receptor modulatorSource: Estimates calculated through Amgen analysis of multiple secondary data sets, 2008.

Q3: Who Are the Most Likely Patient Candidates at Launch?

7.8

20.9

7.7

3.210.8

5.30.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Prevalence Diagnosed Treated

Patie

nts

(in M

illio

ns)

$5.4B/9.1M Patients

Osteopenia

Osteoporosis

37% of Osteopenia;73% of Osteoporosis

Diagnosis Rate: 49%

Treatment Rate: 58%

Patient Share by Treatment Class, 2007

Higher-RiskOsteopenia

Bisphosphonates82%

SERM13%

PTH1%

Calcitonin4%

US PMO Patient Waterfall, 2007


The Unmet Need With Current PMO Treatments Is Substantial

Of the estimated 5.3 million treated osteoporotic women in the US:

Approximately 3M experience GI symptoms, no gain or declining BMD, or fracture while on treatment

A further 1M have discontinued treatment but remain under care of MD

Treated Osteoporosis Patients in the US(5.3M)

GI Symptoms

No Gain/Declining BMD

Newly Treated With Fracture

All Other

2.4

0.5

2.0

0.4

GI = gastrointestinalSources: Estimated based on Adelphi PMO Chart Audit (2004), IMS MIDAS (2007), Verispan PDDA (2007), Mattson Jack Epidemiology Database (2007), and Medstat Medical Claims data (2005).


GI Side Effects Are Commonly Reported by BP Users

Woo, et al, 2008; ASBMR Abstract.

Odd

s R

atio

Data from Amgen POSSIBLE US™ Registry

1 1

1.3

1.6

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

New (N = 1,130) Stable (N = 1,632)

No BP Therapy On BP Therapy

New or currently treated oral BP patients have a30–60% probability of GI side effects


0

25

50

75

100

0 6 12 18 24 30 36

Months Following Therapy Initiation

On

Ther

apy,

%

Discontinuation of Therapy Is a Major Challenge With Oral Bisphosphonates

Adapted from Weycker, et al. OI:2006;17–1645.

30% of patients discontinue BP therapy within the first 6 months, and 50% within 1 year


Q4: What Type of Reimbursement Might Be in Place at Launch, and How Will Denosumab Be Accessed and Administered?

Overall– 6 months administration– Prefilled syringe– Cold chain storage required

US– Expect HCP administration– 50–60% Medicare/40–50% commercial payer split– Medicare

• Part B: MACs to determine coverage postlaunch• Part D: Plans to assess coverage and formulary placement postlaunch

– Commercial payers will decide medical and pharmacy benefitEurope

– Expect HCP administration– Retail channel—minimal to no out-of-pocket– In most EU countries there will be a single national coverage

decision that will be known before we launch the drug

Product/market characteristics

HCP = health care professionalMAC = Medicare Administrative Contractor


Reimbursement Will Likely Follow Two General Pathways, With Different Impacts on Patients and Physicians

Medicare Part B Oncology

PMO

Limited restrictions

Requires MD buy and bill, or refer

Low patient OOP; most have supplemental/ annual max

Commercial Medical

OncologyPMO

Limited restrictions

Requires MD buy and bill, refer, or use SPP

Low patient OOP; most have supplemental/ annual max

Medical Benefit Coverage

Medicare Part DPMO

Most utilization restrictions

TieringPrior authorizations

Retail pharmacy only

Highest patient OOP; 100% in donut hole

Commercial Pharmacy

PMO

More utilization restrictions

TieringPrior authorizations

Retail or specialty pharmacy

Higher patient OOP; no annual cap

Pharmacy Benefit Coverage

OOP = out-of-pocketSPP = specialty pharmacy provider


20%Pays co-insurance

Supplemental pays: 16%

Patient pays: 4%

Patient

80%Bills carrier for: Product: ASP+6%Injection: ~ $15–20

Provides injection

Purchases productMD

US Medicare: Illustrative Example

MD Writes Medical Order

Part DPart B

Buy and Bill

For vast majority


MD Writes PrescriptionPrior Authorization/Step Edit Option

US Medicare: Illustrative Example

Part DPart B

~ $15–20Bills Part D plan (for injection)

Provides injectionMD

“Donut Hole”

25% co-insurance$30–50Patient

Bills Part D plan (for product)

Provides product to patientRetail Pharmacy


US Commercial Payer: Illustrative Example

Pharmacy BenefitMedical Benefit

Buy and BillPurchases product

Provides injection

Bills carrier for: Product: ASP- or AWP-based

Injection: ~ $15–20

MD

$0–$50Pays co-insurancePatient For vast majority

MD Writes Medical Order

ASP = average sale priceAWP = average wholesale price


US Commercial Payer: Illustrative Example

Pharmacy BenefitMedical Benefit

Specialty Pharmacy

~ $15–20Bills health plan (for injection)

Provides injectionMD

~ $50 co-pay/ 20% co-insurance

Pays co-pay/co-insurance

Patient

Bills health plan (for product)

Provides product to patientPharmacy

MD Writes PrescriptionPrior Authorization/Step Edit Option


In EU, Injectable Distribution and Reimbursement Pathways Are Well Established in Each Country

PharmacyPatients

dispensed syringe

Community nurse at homePatient MD

Pharmacy

Hospital

HCP administersPatients

dispensed syringe

Patient MD

Compliance solutions will be optimized for each country

Distribution ModelCountry

France

Germany


Retail Channel Expected to Dominate and Some Regions May Have Prescribing Restrictions

Physician Limitations and Prescribing RestrictionsCountry

France

Germany

Specialists/PCPs can initiate as first line treatment if prior fracture or high risk

Specialists/PCPs encouraged to use generics as first line treatment

PCP = primary care physician


Q5: What Might the Shape of the Sales Curve Look Like?

In the US, typically 50% of high prescribing MDs will try a new innovative product within 6 months of launch*

MDs frequently discuss treatment options with their patients

Typically, a biologic will have a different adoption curve from an oral product

*IMS data


Successful Early Experience Will Be Key to Expanding Use Over Time

Broader Adoption

Any emerging safety

issues?

Compliance system

working?

Any significant payer

constraints on patient selection?

Included in options MD offers for a broad range of patients

Hassle for office staff?

Early Trial

Trial in a few “most

difficult to treat”

patients

Tolerability issues?

Am I in line with local

experts and peers?

Included in options MD offers for

“unsatisfied”patients

Reimbursement reliable?

Affordable for patient?


Specialists Drive More Volume in EU Than in US

TRx = total prescriptionsTRx data covers the period July 2007 to June 2008 (Fosamax®, generic alendronate, Actonel®, Boniva®, Evista®, Forteo®, and Miacalcin®)Underlying data is IMS Health Confidential and Proprietary. Source: IMS XponentPCPs include GP/FP/FM/IM, Endo includes END/REN, only retail and mail order scripts/sales are considered. Decile 0, Urologists and Oncologists (IMS spec codes: U/UP/GO/RO/SO/PHO/OMO/ON/HO) were excluded.Top five “Other” subcategories by TRx include NP, PA, Cardiologists, Pulmonary Disease Specialists, and Geriatric IM Specialists.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

UK France Germany Italy Spain

EndocrinologyGeriatricsInternal Medicine

GynecologyOrthopedicsRheumatology

68%

13%13%

4% 2%

PMO TRx by Specialty(% of total)

Other

Rheumatologist

Endocrinologist

OB/GYN

PCP


Q6: What Will Be Denosumab’s Value Proposition vs Bisphosphonates?

PMO-related fractures are costly to the health care system

Poor compliance leaves many patients at risk

Real-world fracture reduction may not be realized with oral bisphosphonates

A treatment that provides improved compliance offers the potential to significantly improve treatment outcomes and reduce costs


PMO-Related Fractures Are Costly to the Health Care System

US Health Care Expenditure for Osteoporotic Fracture*($ Billions)

Type Inpatient Hospital

Emergency Room Outpatient Nursing

Home Total

Hip $7.7 $0.2 $0.2 $3.9 $12.0

Spine* 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0

Other 3.4 0.6 0.7 1.3 6.0

Total $11.9 $0.8 $1.0 $5.4 $19.1

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding*Ray, et al. JBMR. 1997


Poor Compliance Leaves Many Oral Bisphosphonate Patients at Risk

Fracture risk is not reduced unless a minimum compliance rate of 50% is achieved

*Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) measures refill compliance: the percentage of time a medication was availableSiris ES, et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81:1013–1022.Adapted from Weycker, et al. OI:2006;17–1645.

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

0.12

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Prob

abili

ty o

f Fra

ctur

e at

24

Mon

ths

Medication Possession Ratio*


Real-World Fracture Reduction May Not Be Realized With Oral Bisphosphonates

Kaiser Northwest: Simulation of FIT Trial Using EMR Data

96%45%Compliance (MPR ≥ 80%)

13.6% vs 18.2%HR = 0.72 (0.58–0.90)

9.8% vs 10.8%HR = 0.91 (0.74–1.12)

Any clinical fracture (treated vs comparison)

FIT randomized trial†N = 2,027

Current EMR study* N = 3,658Variable

†FIT 1 Fracture Invervention TrialEMR = electronic medical recordsHR = hazard ratioMPR = medication possession ratio*Feldstein et al, Bone 2008; †Black et al, 1996, Lancet 1535


Treatment Alternatives

Tolerability issuesPoorly compliantDeclining BMDHigher risk

PMO Patient Characteristics

No tolerability issuesHighly compliantIncreasing BMDLower risk

Realized Value to Payers Will Be Driven by Improved Compliance, Patient Selection, and Relative Price

GenericBPs

BrandedBPs

Improved Outcomes

Value of Dmab


Q7: How Many Reps Do You Need to Successfully Launch Denosumab, and What Is Your View on Partnering Opportunities?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 100,000 200,000 300,000

PMO Prescribers in Descending Order of Volume

Cum

ulat

ive

Pres

crip

tion

Volu

me

(% o

f Tot

al)

2008 Prescription Concentration Curve*

*All PMO treatments


Q7: How Many Reps Do You Need to Successfully Launch Denosumab, and What Is Your View on Partnering Opportunities?

500–1,000 repsField Resources

100,000 docs = 85% PMO sales

Universe = 400,000 docsPMO Market Characteristics

US

800–1,500 reps

100,000 docs = 50% PMO sales

Universe = 700,000 docs

International*

*International = 27 total countries (excludes Canada)

We are evaluating partnering opportunities that would create value for both parties


Essential Launch Capabilities to Drive Rapid Adoption

Highly trained, experienced reps– Equally skilled in scientific, clinical, reimbursement, and

fulfillment issues– Supported by tools to educate, advocate, and communicate

the value of denosumab to HCPs and office staff

Engaged, knowledgeable opinion leaders eager to help educate PCPs

A hub of services that are easy to access and use– Fulfillment solutions– Reimbursement assistance– Co-pay assistance (US)– Adherence program– Patient information

Denosumab Oncology Launch Discussion


Top Questions Investors Have for Denosumab in Oncology

Q1: How do the study populations translate into real-world populations, and what is the size of these populations?

Q2: Why might oncologists/urologists prescribe denosumab vs current practice?

Q3: What type of reimbursement might be in place at launch and how will denosumab be accessed and administered?


UntreatedTreated

220K Diagnosed US Patients→ 78% Untreated

50K

170K

Sources: 1. Mattson Jack Cancer Metric; 2. Tandem Cancer Audit; 3. IMS Midas Unit Data;4. Projected from IMS NPA Oncology and Urology TRx

Cancer Treatment-Induced Bone Loss Is an Underdeveloped Market

No currently approved agents

Study dose: 60 mg Q6M


Sources: 1. Mattson Jack Cancer Metric

The Potential to Delay Progression to Bone Metastases in Prostate Cancer Represents a Practice-Changing Opportunity

No currently approved agents

Study dose: 120 mg QM58K 72K

130K Stage 3 US Patients → 45% With Rising PSAs

Rising PSAs Stable PSAs


Sources: 1. Mattson Jack Cancer Metric; 2. Tandem Cancer Audit; 3. IMS Midas Unit Data;

The Treatment of Bone Mets Is a Large Market With Significant Growth Potential

Currently approved agents: Zometa® and pamidronate

Study dose: 120 mg QM142K238K

380K Total US Patients→ 63% Untreated

UntreatedTreated


Q2: Why Might Oncologists/Urologists Prescribe Denosumab vs Current Practice?

Despite the availability of IV BPs, 60–65% of patients with bone mets are not being treated– IV administration– ONJ/renal toxicity

Most desirable attributes– Efficacy across all stages of disease– Well tolerated– Safety– SC administration– Potential to prevent/delay bone mets– Convenient for patients

ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw


Q3: What Type of Reimbursement Might Be in Place at Launch, and How Will Denosumab Be Accessed and Administered?

Product characteristics– 120 mg vial and 60 mg prefilled syringe

Payers: US cancer-induced bone disease1

– Oncology payer mix: 45% Medicare/53% commercial/2% Medicaid

– CMS will address Part B postlaunch– PDPs will address Part D formulary placement in normal

review cycle– Commercial payers will decide medical and/or pharmacy

benefitEU cancer-induced bone disease treatment patterns– Similar treatment dynamics with ~ 140K patients treated of

320K with bone mets2

PDP = prescription drug plan1IMS NDTI data2Mattson Jack CancerMetric and Tandem Cancer Audit


Critical Success Factors

PMO– Provide HCPs with a simple, flexible approach to access and

administer the product– Provide patients with a convenient, effective program to

optimize compliance

Oncology– Demonstrate robust efficacy across all stages of disease– Deliver these benefits with a well-tolerated, SC-administered

product with favorable risk/benefit profile

Both markets– Engage payers constructively to deliver a credible value

proposition based on unique product benefits

A Focus on Value CreationRobert A. BradwayExecutive Vice President and CFO


Driving Value Growth

Grow Earnings and Cash Flows

Optimize Our Capital Structure

Financial Objectives

Return Excess Capital to Our Shareholders

MaintainStrategic Flexibility


8.4

10.6

12.4

14.314.8

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (est)

1.90

2.40

3.20

3.90

4.29

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (est)

A Strong Track Record of Revenues and EPS Growth

14.9–15.25-year CAGR ~ 12%

Revenues($ billions)

4.45–4.555-year CAGR ~ 19%

Adjusted EPS*

($/share)



*Net cash provided by operating activities as presented or derived from our public filings.**Cash flow from operations less capital expenditures.***Last 12 months ending September 30, 2008.†Based on 2003–2007.

A Strong Track Record of Cash Flow Growth

3.6 3.7

4.9

5.4 5.4

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 LTM***

6.14-year CAGR†

~ 11%

Cash Flow From Operations*

($ billions)

2.22.4

4.04.2 4.1

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 LTM***

5.4

4-year CAGR†

~ 17%

Free Cash Flow**

($ billions)


Demonstrated Ability to Adapt Quickly and Deliver on Restructuring

Reduced headcount by ~ 13%

Rationalized facilities and slowed expansion plans

Reduced planned 2007–2008 capital expenditures by $2.4B

Partnered key pipeline molecules in Japan with Takeda

$1.0B–$1.3B of annual pre-tax savings by 2008 versus plan~ $2.5B increase in planned cash flow through 2008


Despite a $1 Billion Decline in ESA Sales Since 2006, Our Operating Margins Have Held Up

3.9

5.0

6.6 6.15.7 5.6**

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

Operating Margin*

ESA Sales$ Billions

OperatingMargin*


**2008 ESA Sales Based on Analyst Estimates; Source: Thomson Financial.

ESA SalesESA = erythropoiesis stimulating agent


We Remain Focused on Our Cost Structure and Continue to Pursue Efficiencies

Cost of sales– Push for process improvements and lower manufacturing costs– Seek opportunities to rationalize manufacturing facilities– Continue to seek tax efficient manufacturing

R&D– Continue to invest (~ 20% of sales)

SG&A– Will reflect investment in launch of denosumab

Wyeth co-promotion agreement– Co-promotion agreement expires in November 2013– Profit share replaced by smaller residual royalties at decreasing

rates for 3 years– Amgen will then have full rights in North America


1.0 1.0

0.0

2.5

0.0

2.5

1.0

0.0 0.0

1.10.5

1.6

Q4 08

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Thereafte

r

We Are Focused on Managing Our Capital Structure

Credit rating provides financial flexibility

Balanced debt maturity profile

Debt is 68% fixed and 32% floating*

– Relatively high proportion of fixed-rate debt reflects long-term nature of assets

$2.3 billion credit facility that matures in 2012

A/F1FitchA+/A1S&PA3/P2Moody’s

$B

0.48x11.27.2

2007 Q3 2008$B

0.54xCFO:Debt11.2Debt9.8Cash

Positive trends in cash and CFO:debt

*As of September 30, 2008.CFO = 12-month trailing cash flow from operations


We Actively Manage Our Foreign Exchange Risk

International sales represented ~ 23% of total sales in Q3 2008

Our revenue exposure is partially offset by expenses incurred outside the US

We hedge our net foreign exchange exposure over a rolling 3-year horizon

Our largest currency exposure is to the Euro


We Manage Our Investment Portfolio Conservatively

US Treasury and Agencies

Asset-Backed Securities

Commercial Paper and Repurchase

Agreements*

Corporate Bonds

Money Market Funds**

*Repurchase agreements are 102% collateralized by US Treasury and Agency securities.**Primarily invested in funds whose underlying securities are US Treasuries and Agencies.CDO = collateralized debt obligationSIV = structured investment vehicleData as of September 30, 2008.

We have no portfolio exposure to subprime mortgages, CDOs, SIVs, auction rate securities, or similar instruments


Overview of Amgen Acquisitions and Select In-Licensing Deals

September 2003MetabolismBiovitrum

October 2005NeuroscienceMemory

July 2006NephrologyProStrakan

October 2006OncologyTetraLogic

January 2007CardiovascularCytokinetics

DateTherapeutic AreaPartner Licensing

Genmab

Predix/Epix

Kyowa Hakko

Inflammation

Inflammation

Inflammation/Oncology March 2008

June 2003

July 2006


$4.9 billion of authorization remaining

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 YTD*

We’re Committed to Returning Capital to Our Shareholders

($ Millions)

*Through September 30, 2008.


An Opportunity to Accelerate Growth

Maturing products’ growth will be driven primarily by patient and price growth for several years

Growth products will benefit from increasing penetration of growing markets, along with some new indications

Contribution of new products will be incremental

No near-term major patent expirations

Continue to focus on managing our cost structure

Capital decisions being optimized

Aspire to grow revenues and adjusted EPS at industry-leading levels

Reconciliations


Amgen Inc.Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income andReconciliation of GAAP Earnings to "Adjusted" Earnings (In millions, except per share data)(Unaudited)

Year Ended Year Ended

GAAP "Adjusted" GAAP "Adjusted" Revenues:

Product sales............................................................... 14,311$ -$ 14,311$ 13,858$ -$ 13,858$ Other revenues............................................................ 460 - 460 410 - 410

Total revenues........................................................ 14,771 - 14,771 14,268 - 14,268

Operating expenses:Cost of sales (excludes amortization of

acquired intangible assets presented below).......... 2,548 (16) (a) 2,255 2,095 (9) (a) 2,080 (150) (b) (6) (i)

(90) (h)(7) (i)

(30) (j)Research and development.......................................... 3,266 (83) (a) 3,064 3,366 (104) (a) 3,191

(19) (b) (48) (c)(71) (c) (19) (d)(29) (d) (4) (i)

Selling, general and administrative............................... 3,361 (82) (a) 3,382 3,366 (120) (a) 3,234 124 (b) (12) (d)(21) (e)

Write-off of acquired in-process R&D........................... 590 (590) (k) - 1,231 (1,231) (k) - Amortization of intangible assets.................................. 298 (295) (f) - 370 (321) (f) -

(3) (l) (49) (l)Other items.................................................................. 728 (694) (b) - - - -

(34) (g)Total operating expenses....................................... 10,791 (2,090) 8,701 10,428 (1,923) 8,505

Operating income.............................................................. 3,980 2,090 6,070 3,840 1,923 5,763

Interest and other income and (expense), net................... (19) 51 (m) 32 180 - 180

Income before income taxes............................................. 3,961 2,141 6,102 4,020 1,923 5,943

Provision for income taxes................................................ 795 92 (n) 1,298 1,070 253 (p) 1,323 411 (o)

Net income........................................................................ 3,166$ 1,638$ 4,804$ 2,950$ 1,670$ 4,620$

Earnings per share:Basic ........................................................................... 2.83$ 4.30$ 2.51$ 3.93$ Diluted (q) ................................................................... 2.82$ 4.29$ (a) 2.48$ 3.90$ (a)

Average shares used in calculationof earnings per share:Basic ........................................................................... 1,117 1,117 1,176 1,176 Diluted (q) ................................................................... 1,123 1,121 (a) 1,190 1,186 (a)

(a) - (q) See explanatory notes on following pages. 4.290098127 3.8998

December 31, 2007 December 31, 2006Adjustments Adjustments


Amgen Inc.Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations andReconciliation of GAAP Earnings to "Adjusted" Earnings(In millions, except per share data)(Unaudited)

Year Ended Year Ended

GAAP Adjustments "Adjusted" GAAP Adjustments "Adjusted"Revenues:

Product sales................................................................ 12,022$ -$ 12,022$ 9,977$ -$ 9,977$ Other revenues............................................................. 408 - 408 573 - 573

Total revenues......................................................... 12,430 - 12,430 10,550 - 10,550


acquired intangible assets presented below)........... 2,082 (47) (v) 2,035 1,731 (2) (z) 1,729 Research and development........................................... 2,314 (12) (r) 2,302 2,028 (16) (r) 1,996

(16) (z)Selling, general and administrative................................ 2,790 2 (s) 2,792 2,556 (11) (r) 2,548

(8) (z)11 (s)

Write-off of acquired in-process R&D............................ - - - 554 (554) (aa) - Amortization of intangible assets................................... 347 (347) (t) - 333 (333) (t) - Legal settlements.......................................................... 49 (49) (w) - - - -

Total operating expenses........................................ 7,582 (453) 7,129 7,202 (929) 6,273

Operating income............................................................... 4,848 453 5,301 3,348 929 4,277

Interest and other income, net........................................... 20 (20) (x) 20 47 - 47 20 (y)

Income before income taxes.............................................. 4,868 453 5,321 3,395 929 4,324

Provision for income taxes................................................. 1,194 (43) (u) 1,298 1,032 144 (bb) 1,176 147 (bb)

Net income......................................................................... 3,674$ 349$ 4,023$ 2,363$ 785$ 3,148$

Earnings per share:Basic ............................................................................ 2.97$ 3.25$ 1.86$ 2.48$ Diluted (cc) ................................................................... 2.93$ 3.20$ 1.81$ 2.40$

Shares used in calculation of earnings per share:Basic ............................................................................ 1,236 1,236 1,271 1,271 Diluted (cc) ................................................................... 1,258 1,258 1,320 1,320

(r) - (cc) See explanatory notes on following pages.

December 31, 2005 December 31, 2004


(In millions, except per share data)(Unaudited)

Year Ended

GAAP Adjustments "Adjusted"Revenues:

Product sales................................................................ 7,868$ -$ 7,868$ Other revenues............................................................. 488 - 488

Total revenues........................................................ 8,356 - 8,356


acquired intangible assets presented below).......... 1,341 (19) (dd) 1,322 Research and development.......................................... 1,655 (34) (dd) 1,621 Selling, general and administrative............................... 1,957 (17) (dd) 1,893

(47) (gg)Amortization of intangible assets.................................. 336 (336) (ee) - Other items................................................................... (24) 74 (hh) -

(50) (ff)Total operating expenses........................................ 5,265 (429) 4,836

Operating income............................................................... 3,091 429 3,520

Interest and other income, net............................................ 82 - 82

Income before income taxes.............................................. 3,173 429 3,602

Provision for income taxes................................................. 914 149 (ii) 1,063

Net income......................................................................... 2,259$ 280$ 2,539$

20.8 20.8Earnings per share:

Basic ........................................................................... 1.75$ 1.97$ Diluted (jj) .................................................................... 1.69$ 1.90$

Shares used in calculation of earnings per share:Basic ........................................................................... 1,288 1,288 Diluted (jj) .................................................................... 1,346 1,346

(dd) - (jj) See explanatory notes on following pages.

December 31, 2003


Amgen Inc.Notes to Reconciliation of GAAP Earnings to "Adjusted" Earnings (In millions, except per share data)(Unaudited)

(a) To exclude the impact of stock option expense recorded in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 123R. For the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, the total pre-tax expense for employee stock optionsin accordance with SFAS No. 123R was $181 million and $233 million, respectively.

"Adjusted" diluted EPS including the impact of stock option expense for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was as follows:

2007 2006

"Adjusted" diluted EPS, excluding stock option expense........................... 4.29$ 3.90$ Impact of stock option expense........................................................... (0.12) (0.14)

"Adjusted" diluted EPS, including stock option expense............................ 4.17$ 3.76$

(b) The following table summarizes the (expense)/income amounts related to the restructuring plan:

Cost of sales (excluding amortization of intangible$ 1 $ (4) $ (147) $ - $ (150) 19 (38) - - (19) 11 - (1) 114 124 (209) (366) - (119) (694)$ (178) $ (408) $ (148) $ (5) $ (739)

(1) To exclude severance and other separation costs partially offset by the reversal of previously accrued expenses for bonuses and stock-based compensation awards, which were forfeited as a result of the employees' termination.

(2) To exclude asset impairment charges incurred in connection with the rationalization of our worldwide manufacturing operationsin order to gain cost efficiencies and, to a lesser degree, the moderation of the expansion of our research facilities.

(3) To exclude accelerated depreciation primarily resulting from our decision to accelerate the closure of one of our ENBREL commercial bulk production operations in connection with the rationalization of our worldwide network of manufacturing facilities. The decision to accelerate the closure of this manufacturing operation was principally based on a thorough review of the supply plan for bulk ENBREL inventory across its worldwide manufacturing network, including consideration of expected increases in manufacturing yields, and the determination that the related assets had no future uses in the Company's operations. The amount included in the table above represents the excess of accelerated depreciation expense over the depreciation that would otherwise have been recorded if there were no plans to accelerate the closure of this manufacturing operation.

(4) To exclude from SG&A the cost recoveries for certain restructuring expenses, principally with respect to accelerated depreciation,in connection with our co-promotion agreement with Wyeth. Also, to exclude from Other items charges principally related to loss accruals for leases for certain research and development facilities that will not be used in our business.

(c) To exclude, for the applicable periods, the ongoing, non-cash amortization of the R&D technology intangible assets acquired with the acquisition of Abgenix, Inc. ("Abgenix"), effective April 1, 2006, and Avidia, Inc. ("Avidia"), effective October 24, 2006.

(d) To exclude, for the applicable periods, merger related expenses incurred due to the Alantos Pharmaceutical Holding, Inc. ("Alantos"), Ilypsa, Inc. ("Ilypsa"), Avidia, Abgenix and Tularik Inc. ("Tularik") acquisitions, primarily related to incremental costs associated with retention and/or integration. Substantially all related amounts have been incurred.

(e) To exclude severance related expenses incurred in connection with our acquisition of the remaining 51 percent ownership interest ofDompe Biotec, S.p.A. ("Dompe").

Year Ended

Accelerated Depreciation

(3)Separation Costs (1)

Asset Impairment

(2) Other (4)

December 31,

Total

Other items..................................................................

assets)..................................................................

Year Ended December 31, 2007

Research and development (R&D)...............................Selling, general and administrative (SG&A).................


Amgen Inc.Notes to Reconciliation of GAAP Earnings to "Adjusted" Earnings (In millions, except per share data)(Unaudited)

(f) To exclude the ongoing, non-cash amortization of acquired product technology rights, primarily ENBREL, related to the Immunex Corporation ("Immunex") acquisition.

(g) To exclude a loss accrual for an ongoing commercial legal proceeding.

(h) To exclude the write-off of inventory principally due to changing regulatory and reimbursement environments.

(i) To exclude merger related expenses incurred due to the Abgenix acquisition, primarily related to incremental costs associatedwith recording inventory acquired at fair value which is in excess of our manufacturing cost.

(j) To exclude the impact of writing-off the cost of a semi-completed manufacturing asset that will not be used due to a change in manufacturing strategy.

(k) To exclude for the applicable periods the non-cash expense associated with writing-off the acquired in-process research and development ("IPR&D") related to the acquisitions of Abgenix and Avidia in 2006 and Alantos and Ilypsa in 2007.

(l) To exclude the impairment of a non-ENBREL related intangible asset previously acquired in the Immunex acquisition.

(m) To exclude the pro rata portion of the deferred financing and related costs that were immediately charged to interest expense as a result of certain holders of the convertible notes due in 2032 exercising their March 1, 2007 put option and the related convertiblenotes being repaid in cash.

(n) To exclude the income tax benefit recognized as the result of resolving certain non-routine transfer pricing issues with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") for prior periods.

(o) To reflect the tax effect of the above adjustments for 2007, excluding for the applicable periods: (1) certain of the restructuring charges (see (b) above), (2) certain components of the write-off of inventory (see (h) above), (3) the write-off of the acquired IPR&D related to the Alantos and Ilypsa acquisitions (see (k) above), (4) the write-off of the cost of a semi-completed manufacturing asset (see (j) above), and (5) the tax benefit recognized as a result of resolving certain non-routine transfer pricing issues with the IRS (see (n) above).

(p) To reflect the tax effect of the above adjustments for 2006, excluding for the applicable periods the write-off of the acquired IPR&D related to the Abgenix and Avidia acquisitions (see (k) above).

(q) The following table presents the computations for GAAP and "Adjusted" diluted earnings per share, computed under the treasurystock method. "Adjusted" earnings per share presented below excludes stock option expense:

GAAP "Adjusted" GAAP "Adjusted" Income (Numerator):

Net income for basic and diluted EPS.................... 3,166$ 4,804$ 2,950$ 4,620$

Shares (Denominator): Weighted-average shares for basic EPS............... 1,117 1,117 1,176 1,176 Effect of dilutive securities..................................... 6 4 ( ) 14 10 ( )Weighted-average shares for diluted EPS............. 1,123 1,121 1,190 1,186

Diluted earnings per share........................................... 2.82$ 4.29$ 2.48$ 3.90$

( ) Dilutive securities used to compute "Adjusted" diluted earnings per share for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006were computed exclusive of the methodology used to determine dilutive securities under SFAS No. 123R.

December 31, 2007 December 31, 2006Year Ended Year Ended


Amgen Inc.Notes to Reconciliation of GAAP Earnings to "Adjusted" Earnings(In millions, except per share data)(Unaudited)

(r) To exclude the incremental compensation provided to certain Tularik employees principally related to non-cashcompensation expense associated with stock options assumed in connection with the acquisition and amounts payable under the Tularik short-term retention plan.

(s) To exclude the impact to the Company of its share of the third-party reimbursements received by Kirin-Amgen, Inc. ("KA")related to the Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") legal settlement in August 2003.

(t) To exclude the ongoing, non-cash amortization of acquired intangible assets, primarily ENBREL, related to the Immunexacquisition.

(u) To exclude the tax liability incurred as a result of repatriating certain foreign earnings under the American Jobs Act of 2004.

(v) To exclude the impact of writing off the cost of a semi-completed manufacturing asset that will not be used due to a change in manufacturing strategy.

(w) To exclude the impact of legal settlements incurred, net of amounts previously accrued, primarily related to settling a patent legal proceeding.

(x) To exclude the net gain realized on the termination of a manufacturing agreement with Genentech for the production of ENBREL at Genentech's manufacturing facility in San Francisco, California.

(y) To exclude the pro rata portion of the debt issuance costs that were immediately charged to interest expense, as a result of certain holders of the convertible notes exercising their March 1, 2005 put option and the related convertible notes beingrepaid in cash.

(z) To exclude the incremental compensation payable to certain Immunex employees principally under the Immunex short-term retention plan. All amounts have been incurred under this plan.

(aa) To exclude the non-cash expense associated with writing off the acquired in-process research and development relatedto the Tularik acquisition.

(bb) To reflect the tax effect of the above adjustments, except for the tax liability incurred as a result of repatriating certain foreign

earnings (see (u) above), the write-off of the cost of a semi-completed manufacturing asset (see (v) above), and the

write-off of acquired in-process R&D (see (aa) above).

(cc) The following table presents the computations for GAAP and "Adjusted" diluted earnings per share (EPS) computed underthe treasury stock and the "if-converted" methods:

GAAP "Adjusted" GAAP "Adjusted"Income (Numerator):

Net income for basic EPS ............................................ 3,674$ 4,023$ 2,363$ 3,148$ Adjustment for interest expense on

convertible notes, net of tax .................................... 6 (φ) 6 (φ) 21 21 Net income for diluted EPS, after assumed

conversion of convertible notes ............................... 3,680$ 4,029$ 2,384$ 3,169$

Shares (Denominator): Weighted-average shares for basic EPS ..................... 1,236 1,236 1,271 1,271 Effect of dilutive securities ........................................... 12 12 14 14 Effect of convertible notes, after assumed

conversion .............................................................. 10 (φ) 10 (φ) 35 35 Weighted-average shares for diluted EPS ................... 1,258 1,258 1,320 1,320

Diluted earnings per share ............................................... 2.93$ 3.20$ 1.81$ 2.40$

(φ) On May 6, 2005 and August 17, 2005, in connection with an exchange offer, we modified the terms of approximately 99 percent of our convertible notes then outstanding (the "Modified Convertible Notes"). As a result of certain of these modifications, if converted, the Modified Convertible Notes would be settled in 1) cash equal to the lesser of the accreted value of the Modified Convertible Notes at the conversion date or the conversion value, as defined, and 2) shares of common stock, if any, to the extent the conversion value exceeds the accreted value. Accordingly, the Modified Convertible Notes do not impact diluted earnings per share under the "if-converted" method but rather, they impact diluted earnings per share under the treasury stock method, and only to the extent that the conversion value exceeds the accreted value during any reporting period, requiring such difference, if any, to be potentially settled in shares of common stock.

December 31, 2005 December 31, 2004Year Ended Year Ended


Amgen Inc.Notes to Reconciliation of GAAP Earnings to "Adjusted" Earnings(In millions, except per share data)(Unaudited)

(dd) To exclude the incremental compensation payable to certain Immunex employees principally under the Immunex short-term retention plan.

(ee) To exclude the ongoing, non-cash amortization of acquired intangible assets, primarily ENBREL®, related to the Immunex acquisition.

(ff) To exclude a cash contribution to the Amgen Foundation.

(gg) To exclude the impact to the Company of a legal settlement paid to Genentech in connection with settling a patentlitigation matter relating to the Company's processes for producing NEUPOGEN® and Neulasta®. Pursuant to the terms of a license agreement between the Company and KA, an entity 50% owned by the Company, KA was obligated to indemnify the Company for the payment made to Genentech. The Company accounts for its ownership interest in KA under the equity method.

(hh) To exclude a benefit for the recovery of costs and expenses associated with a legal award related to an arbitrationproceeding with Johnson & Johnson.

(ii) To reflect the tax effect of the above adjustments.

(jj) The following tables present the computations for GAAP and "Adjusted" diluted earnings per share computed under

the treasury stock and the "if-converted" methods:

GAAP "Adjusted"Income (Numerator):

Net income for basic EPS .......................................................... 2,259$ 2,539$ Adjustment for interest expense on

Convertible Notes, net of tax ................................................. 21 21 Net income for diluted EPS, after assumed

conversion of Convertible Notes ........................................... 2,280$ 2,560$

Shares (Denominator): Weighted-average shares for basic EPS ................................... 1,288 1,288 Effect of Dilutive Securities ........................................................ 23 23 Effect of Convertible Notes, after assumed

conversion of Convertible Notes ........................................... 35 35 Weighted-average shares for diluted EPS ................................. 1,346 1,346

Diluted earnings per share .............................................................. 1.69$ 1.90$

December 31, 2003Year Ended


Amgen Inc.Reconciliation of GAAP Research and Development Expense to "Adjusted" Research and Development Expense(In millions)(Unaudited)

2001 (a) 2002GAAP research and development expense................................................................... $865 $1,117Adjustments to GAAP research and development expense:.......................................

Other merger-related expense..................................................................................... - (18) (b)"Adjusted" research and development expense.......................................................... $865 $1,099

(a) GAAP research and development expense was the same as "Adjusted" research and development expensefor the year ended December 31, 2001.

(b) To exclude the incremental compensation payable to certain Immunex employees principally under the Immunex short-term retention plan.

Year Ended December 31,


Amgen Inc.Reconciliation of "Adjusted" Earnings Per Share Guidance to GAAPEarnings Per Share Guidance for the Year Ending December 31, 2008(Unaudited)

"Adjusted" earnings per share guidance...........................................................................................................… 4.45$ - 4.55$

Known adjustments to arrive at GAAP earnings:Legal settlements................................................................................................................................................. (a) (0.19)Amortization of acquired intangible assets, product technology rights.................................................................. (b) (0.17)Stock option expense........................................................................................................................................... (c) (0.06) - (0.08)Write-off of inventory............................................................................................................................................ (d) (0.06)Restructuring costs............................................................................................................................................... (e) (0.03) - (0.05)Amortization of acquired intangible assets, R&D technology rights...................................................................... (f) (0.04)Loss on sale of less significant marketed products............................................................................................... (g) (0.01)

GAAP earnings per share guidance ....................................................................................................................... 3.85$ - 3.99$

(a) To exclude loss accruals for settlements of certain commercial legal proceedings.

(b) To exclude the ongoing, non-cash amortization of acquired product technology rights, primarily ENBREL, related to the Immunex acquisition.

(c) To exclude stock option expense associated with SFAS No. 123R.

(d) To exclude the write-off of inventory resulting from a strategic decision to change manufacturing processes.

(e) To exclude restructuring related costs.

(f) To exclude the ongoing, non-cash amortization of the R&D technology intangible assets acquired with the Abgenix and Avidia acquisitions.

(g) To exclude the loss accrual on the sale of certain less significant marketed products and related assets.

2008


Amgen Inc.Reconciliation of Free cash flow(In billions)(Unaudited)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Cash flow from operations (a)......................................... $3.6 $3.7 $4.9 $5.4 $5.4Less: Capital expenditures.............................................. (1.4) (1.3) (0.9) (1.2) (1.3)Free cash flow................................................................. $2.2 $2.4 $4.0 $4.2 $4.1

Three Months Ended Nine Months EndedLTM***

Cash flow from operations (a)......................................... $6.1Less: Capital expenditures.............................................. (0.7)Free cash flow................................................................. $5.4

(a) Net cash provided by operating activities as presented in or derived from our public filings.

*** Last twelve months ending September 30, 2008

(0.2)$1.3

$4.6(0.5)$4.1

Year Ended December 31,

December 31, 2007 September 30, 2008$1.5

Amgen Business ReviewNovember 7, 2008

Documents

Amgen Business Review - library.corporate-ir.netlibrary.corporate-ir.net/library/61/616/61656/items/314765/08.11.07... · Amgen Business Review November 7, ... Amgen is providing